AMD EPYC 9274F vs Intel Core i3-13100 Comparison

The Intel Core i3-13100 and the AMD EPYC 9274F occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both hold the same 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs. The data shows a complete sweep for the EPYC across all six head-to-head benchmark tests, with the Core i3 failing to secure a single win. This comparison is less about close competition and more about understanding how two fundamentally different architectures—one a 4-core desktop chip, the other a 24-core server monster—arrive at similar overall performance percentiles through vastly different strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F wins decisively in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 62,884 against the Core i3's 11,986, representing an 80.9% delta in the EPYC's favor. The same 80.9% delta appears in both Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-13100 win in any single-core test?

A: No. The EPYC 9274F wins every single-core test as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 8,877 versus the Core i3's 1,692, an 80.9% delta. The single-core deltas in R15 and R20 are even slightly larger at 81%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of average benchmark score?

A: They are nearly identical. The Intel Core i3-13100 has an average benchmark score of 18,380, while the AMD EPYC 9274F averages 18,189. This places both processors in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, despite the EPYC's massive benchmark wins.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-13100 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads, making it six times larger in core count and six times larger in thread count.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i3-13100 does not. The EPYC also supports twelve-channel memory with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, whereas the Core i3 uses dual-channel memory.

Q: What are the process nodes used by each chip?

A: The Intel Core i3-13100 uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The AMD EPYC 9274F uses a 5 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, and it integrates 52,560 million transistors across eight 72 mm² dies.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is profound, reflecting their distinct market segments. The Intel Core i3-13100 is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-S codename, using a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry. Its die size is 163 mm², and it utilizes a per-core cache hierarchy of 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2, with a shared 12 MB L3 cache. This is a desktop-oriented design with a 60 W TDP, supporting DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and it includes integrated UHD Graphics 730.

The AMD EPYC 9274F, in contrast, is a Zen 4 architecture chip codenamed Genoa, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. Its construction is radically different: it uses eight separate 72 mm² dies, totaling 52,560 million transistors. The cache hierarchy is per-core 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2, but the shared L3 cache is a massive 256 MB. This server/workstation part has a 320 W TDP and supports only DDR5 memory, but across a twelve-channel bus delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. It also offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i3 provides 16 such lanes.

The EPYC's 256 MB shared L3 cache is more than 21 times larger than the Core i3's 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC also requires an AMD Socket SP5, while the Core i3 fits into Intel Socket 1700. The transistor count difference is stark: the EPYC packs 52,560 million transistors versus no listed count for the Core i3. The Core i3's integrated graphics are absent on the EPYC, which relies on the host system for display output. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core i3, and its twelve-channel memory bus is six times wider than the Core i3's dual-channel setup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results present a uniform picture: the AMD EPYC 9274F wins all six tests, with every delta hovering near 81%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 6,338 against the Core i3's 1,208, an 80.9% delta. The R15 single-core test shows the EPYC at 894 versus 170, an 81% delta. Moving to R20, the multi-core scores are 26,411 for the EPYC and 5,034 for the Core i3, again an 80.9% delta, while single-core sees 3,728 versus 710, an 81% delta.

The Cinebench R23 results continue the trend. Multi-core shows the EPYC at 62,884 and the Core i3 at 11,986, an 80.9% delta. Single-core in R23 has the EPYC at 8,877 and the Core i3 at 1,692, also an 80.9% delta. The consistency of these deltas—all within 0.1 percentage points—suggests the performance gap scales uniformly across workloads. The EPYC's multi-core advantage translates to roughly 5.2 times the raw score in R23, while its single-core advantage is about 5.2 times as well.

The Core i3 does have additional PassMark benchmark results that the EPYC lacks, including a data compression score of 161,424, a data encryption score of 8,049, and a floating point math score of 32,325. However, these are not part of the head-to-head comparison, which only includes Cinebench tests. In the tests where both chips have data, the EPYC's dominance is absolute, with the Core i3 scoring zero wins and the EPYC securing six.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals how differently these two chips are engineered. The Intel Core i3-13100 operates at a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9274F has a higher base clock of 4.05 GHz but a lower boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The EPYC's TDP of 320 W is more than five times that of the Core i3's 60 W. The Core i3 has 4 cores and 8 threads; the EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Memory support differs entirely: the Core i3 uses DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, while the EPYC uses only DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and a specified bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Core i3. PCIe lanes also differ drastically: the Core i3 offers 16 Gen 5 lanes, while the EPYC offers 128 Gen 5 lanes.

The cache configurations are distinct in both capacity and structure. The Core i3 has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, with 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, but a 256 MB shared L3. The process node is 10 nm for Intel and 5 nm for AMD, with the EPYC using 52,560 million transistors across eight 72 mm² dies, versus the Core i3's single 163 mm² die. The Core i3 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The release dates differ by about two months, with the Core i3 released on 2023-01-03 and the EPYC on 2022-11-09.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 9274F wins in every measured category. It dominates all Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core, by roughly 81%. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on raw CPU computational throughput, whether that is rendering, scientific simulation, or heavy multi-threaded server tasks. The EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with its 256 MB L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, position it as a server/workstation powerhouse. Its support for ECC memory and twelve-channel DDR5 further cement its role in reliability-critical environments.

The Intel Core i3-13100 does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but its data in PassMark tests shows strengths in specific desktop tasks. Its data compression score of 161,424 and integer math score of 41,313 indicate capable performance for everyday computing. The Core i3's integrated UHD Graphics 730 and lower 60 W TDP suggest it is designed for efficiency and simplicity in a desktop context, where the EPYC's 320 W TDP and lack of integrated graphics would be impractical. The Core i3's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives system builders flexibility, and its 4.50 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC's 4.30 GHz, though this did not translate into a single-core benchmark win.

The wins distribution is unambiguous: the EPYC takes all six head-to-head tests. The Core i3's wins are not in the benchmark comparison but in its qualitative attributes—integrated graphics, dual memory support, and a much lower TDP. For a user building a compact desktop or a basic office machine, the Core i3 offers a complete package. For a user running heavy multi-threaded workloads in a server environment, the EPYC is unmatched in this comparison.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear split. The AMD EPYC 9274F is the superior processor for performance-critical applications, winning every benchmark by approximately 81%. Its 24 cores, 48 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth deliver 62,884 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus the Core i3's 11,986. Anyone needing maximum CPU throughput should choose the EPYC, provided they can accommodate its 320 W TDP and server platform requirements.

The Intel Core i3-13100 is the appropriate choice for desktop users who prioritize simplicity, integrated graphics, and lower power consumption. Its 60 W TDP, UHD Graphics 730, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 make it a flexible and efficient component for everyday tasks. Its average benchmark score of 18,380 is nearly identical to the EPYC's 18,189, showing that for typical desktop workloads, the Core i3 offers competitive overall performance despite losing every head-to-head test. The two chips sit at the same 72nd percentile, but they achieve that status through entirely different means—the Core i3 through efficient single-threaded desktop performance and the EPYC through sheer multi-threaded server muscle.